This is an example of an opinion based on ignorance. In fact, there has been plenty of testing of the AGW hypothesis. See here (esp. chapter 9) for starters. This does not mean any one test is completely definitive (which is true in any reasonably complex field of science) but the overwhelming weight of the evidence is that the warming of the last ~50 years is not simply a natural fluctuation.
That’s an awfully long document. Can you tell me which passage you are referring to? Or quote part of it as an example?
I’m curious to know where the OP is heading with this argument anyway - I feel certain that this is only a stepping-stone debate on the way to something else; possibly “all faith-based positions are therefore reasonable”?
Almost certainly. Claiming that science is faith based and therefore religion is just as good as science is a common lie I hear from the religious.
I was putting my money on “Since you take AGW totally on faith, your belief in AGW is no more tenable than belief in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny”
kanicbird is big on religion; I’d expect a pro-religion angle rather than an anti-AGW one.
Chalk up my error to inexperience here, then 
Excuse me. While my brother is in the oil business, I am not part of any global consortium; indeed I forget what logical fallacy that is. In all the discussions I’ve had and papers I’ve read, there has been not one shred of actual proof of AGW. Not one shred. There are correllations with global warming other than CO[sub]2[/sub]. Sunspots, for example. But correllation does not imply causation: sunspots may be the cause but they also may not. No actual link has been shown; so it is with CO[sub]2[/sub].
Go read Intention’s posts in the other thread: he’s vastly better and more patient at this argument than me.
They would assume only if they had no justifications, did you bother to read the rest?
Unless you can find a valid alternative physical explanation, the evidence of the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere are there.
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11638
There is that, and then finding that the Sun was not the main factor, as it was mentioned before by many contrarians, is what is convincing me that it is faith what is keeping climate change deniers going.
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11650
Remember that the overall point here is that scientists are taking all that on faith, in absolute terms this is not the truth: it is more than faith what is making modern science to be concerned about this.
It’s easy to do if you make “faith” utterly meaningless. By this definition, every choice we ever make is based solely on faith. I’m going out tonight, and I’ll probably order a beer. I have to take it on faith that the bartender pours the specific brand of beer I ordered.
Sure, I could watch to make sure it comes out of the right tap, but then I have to take it on faith that the tap is connected to the right keg. I could check the keg, but I’d have to take it on faith that it’s labeled correctly. I could go back to the quality control records in the brewery, but I’d have to take it on faith that the brewer didn’t fudge them. I could go back in time and watch them actually brew the beer, but I have to take it on faith that the recipe they’re working from is the actual recipe for that particular brew.
If I accept so many leaps of faith in something as simple as my single after-work beer, I suppose that somehow proves the existence of God. I’m not really sure how that follows, but I’m pretty sure I’m supposed to just take it on faith.
Well, unfortunately, there is a large body of science to summarize. As I noted, chapter 9 is probably the most relevant one…and section 9.7 provides a sort of summary of it. (You can also look at the summary for policymakers, esp. the part starting on p. 10 although that tends to summarize the conclusions without providing much detail on the evidence for those conclusions.)
There is a sliding scale that some people don’t see: namely, that you must take certain things more on faith than others. Simply because you must place some trust in AGW on things you cannot observe first-hand or knowledge you do not have does not mean that it’s on the same level with everything else you also cannot observe firsthand.
Is GW proven to the extent that it is “foolish to not preliminarily agree?” Unless scientists are massively faking their data, yes. Is AGW? Pretty close to it.
It’s like people who think that cutting taxes nearly always results in greater tax revenue. It’s a silly idea on the face of it that when you think about it may have some merit, but when you look at the facts, they also directly contradict those that think you can outgrow the Laffer Curve indefinitely.
Similarly, AGW is supported both by the hard science (in that CO2 is a greenhouse gas) and by data (in that the CO2 is anthropogenic.) Sure, it’s possible that they are disconnected. A lot of things are possible. But the correlation between the hard science and the real-world data is such that in my mind it is the responsibility of those who believe AGW is nonexistent or small to show that.
Nobody is claiming that the models are evidence. Climate data from years past and climate data taken today is evidence, though. If this data fits the models, then we can be sure that the model is accurate. If not, then the model needs changing. This is how all branches of science work.
A model is built, a hypothesis formed, and the hypothesis tested empirically. Just like what is happening now, with the AGW model.
Then why not just give an example?
I did a word search and I couldn’t find the word “test” or “experiment” in section 9.7.
I’m just asking you to cite and describe a couple of these “tests” you refer to.
Does anybody actually believe that this thread was started in good faith? How many AGW threads has kanicbird participated in, now? He knows the arguments for AGW. He knows that every complaint he has can be rebutted. That’s why he’s switched tactics, ignoring the science behind AGW and instead attacking science itself.
Let’s face it, kanicbird, and those like him, aren’t going to change their minds. It’s time the scientific community went on the offensive and began making people like him into pariahs, akin to flat earthers.
Let’s say I have some strawberry ice cream in a cone, and I take it outside. It is 70 F in my house, and 105 F in the blistery sun.
I notice that my ice cream is melting, and dripping all over my hands. So, I hypothesize that since it’s really hot outside, and the ice cream melts when it gets hot, that it’s the outside heat that is causing my ice cream to melt. If someone wants to dispute my hypothesis, they need to falsify it (e.g., take ice cream out in a 105 F environment, and have it not melt). In other words, they need to tell me why the heat of the sun is not melting my ice cream (since something else apparently is).
And this is like saying, “Well, your ice cream was even melting in the 70 F environment of your house. So, it’s obviously not the heat of the sun that’s melting it!”
It’s the deviation from natural fluctuations that has raised the red flags. The AGW theory explains it. If you want to discredit the theory, then you have to explain why the excess CO2 is not causing the warming (since all signs point to that fact).
LilShieste
It is that AGW is a new religion, with it’s own end of world prophecy, it takes the place of the former spiritual based religions and substituted science as spiritual based knowledge.
It had many similarities to spiritual based religions including the concept of ‘sin’ repentance, indulgences.
Many anti/nonreligious people blame/accuse religion of being used to control the masses, the same can be said for AGW.
As for researching for oneself the concept of AGW, I can say the same thing for people looking for God, many find God. Now God may not be ‘provable’ in a scientific sense, but God has ‘proved’ Himself to many beyond question.
For the record Der Trihs I am not big on organized religion, but big on a personal relationship with God. God is big enough that He does not need a one size fits all relationship, but can deal with us as individual friends. Organized religion IMHO can lead to abuses as we have discussed.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
Again, the “not one shred” tidbit is a lie, the latest evidence also reduced the sun’s influence in the current warming.
Reading that article showed me how the CO2 connection was an speculation before, the links began to be accepted because of the evidence.
The temperatures we have been experiencing are well within the scope of natural fluctuation.
To carry your analogy a step further, it would be as if the indoor and outdoor temperatures fluctuate both above and below 105 on a regular basis. So it’s hard to say that taking the ice cream cone outside caused it to melt quickly.
That’s really not how science works. A single test isn’t evidence of anything - science depends on the replication of results under different experiments. The section jshore cited is long because, as he said, there’s a large body of work to summarize. The results of any single test aren’t necessarily all that significant; the results of the series of experiments described in that document are significant. However, each experiment loses some of its significance when it’s separated from the rest of the work.
It is indeed a long chapter, and there’s nothing wrong with not reading it. There’s a lot of other things in life that need more immediate attention from all of us than this report. But if you want to be part of an informed debate, you pretty much have to read it. Sorry.